239560-2

United States Department of State
Bureau for International Narcotics and Law
Enforcement Affairs
International
Narcotics Control
Strategy Report
Volume I
Drug and Chemical
Control
March 2015

INCSR 2015 Volume 1 Table of Contents
i
Table of Contents
Volume 1
Common Abbreviations............................................................................................................................ iv
International Agreements.......................................................................................................................... v
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................1
Legislative Basis for the INCSR................................................................................................................2
Major Illicit Drug Producing, Drug-Transit, Significant Source, Precursor Chemical, and Money
Laundering Countries................................................................................................................................5
Presidential Determination........................................................................................................................7
Policy and Program Developments.........................................................................................................18
Overview .................................................................................................................................................19
Demand Reduction .................................................................................................................................22
Methodology for U.S. Government Estimates of Illegal Drug Production...............................................25
Parties to UN Conventions......................................................................................................................30
USG Assistance.....................................................................................................................................36
International Training ..............................................................................................................................40
Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) ................................................................................................43
United States Coast Guard (USCG) .......................................................................................................45
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)...........................................................................................47
Chemical Controls................................................................................................................................50
Country Reports........................................................................................................................................92
Afghanistan .............................................................................................................................................93
Albania ....................................................................................................................................................99
Argentina...............................................................................................................................................100
Armenia.................................................................................................................................................101
Azerbaijan .............................................................................................................................................102
The Bahamas........................................................................................................................................103
Belize.....................................................................................................................................................108
Bolivia....................................................................................................................................................112
Bosnia and Herzegovina.......................................................................................................................116
Brazil .....................................................................................................................................................117
Bulgaria .................................................................................................................................................120
Burma....................................................................................................................................................121
Cabo Verde ...........................................................................................................................................126
Cambodia..............................................................................................................................................126
Canada..................................................................................................................................................128
Chile ......................................................................................................................................................132
China.....................................................................................................................................................133
Colombia ...............................................................................................................................................136
Costa Rica.............................................................................................................................................141
Croatia...................................................................................................................................................145
Cuba......................................................................................................................................................146
Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK or North Korea) .........................................................147
Dominican Republic ..............................................................................................................................148
Dutch Caribbean ...................................................................................................................................153
Eastern Caribbean ................................................................................................................................156
Ecuador.................................................................................................................................................160

ii
Egypt .....................................................................................................................................................165
El Salvador............................................................................................................................................166
Georgia..................................................................................................................................................171
Germany................................................................................................................................................172
Ghana....................................................................................................................................................174
Guatemala.............................................................................................................................................176
Guinea...................................................................................................................................................181
Guinea-Bissau.......................................................................................................................................182
Guyana..................................................................................................................................................183
Haiti .......................................................................................................................................................186
Honduras...............................................................................................................................................191
India.......................................................................................................................................................196
Indonesia...............................................................................................................................................201
Iran ........................................................................................................................................................204
Iraq ........................................................................................................................................................205
Italy........................................................................................................................................................208
Jamaica.................................................................................................................................................209
Kazakhstan............................................................................................................................................214
Kenya ....................................................................................................................................................218
Kosovo ..................................................................................................................................................220
Laos.......................................................................................................................................................224
Lebanon ................................................................................................................................................229
Malaysia ................................................................................................................................................234
Mexico...................................................................................................................................................235
Moldova.................................................................................................................................................240
Montenegro ...........................................................................................................................................241
Morocco.................................................................................................................................................242
The Netherlands....................................................................................................................................243
Nicaragua..............................................................................................................................................246
Nigeria...................................................................................................................................................251
Pakistan.................................................................................................................................................255
Panama.................................................................................................................................................260
Paraguay...............................................................................................................................................265
Peru.......................................................................................................................................................268
Philippines.............................................................................................................................................273
Portugal.................................................................................................................................................277
Romania................................................................................................................................................278
Russia ...................................................................................................................................................279
Senegal .................................................................................................................................................280
Serbia....................................................................................................................................................281
South Africa...........................................................................................................................................282
Spain .....................................................................................................................................................283
Suriname...............................................................................................................................................284
Tajikistan ...............................................................................................................................................287
Tanzania................................................................................................................................................290
Thailand.................................................................................................................................................292
Timor-Leste ...........................................................................................................................................296
Trinidad and Tobago.............................................................................................................................299
Turkey ...................................................................................................................................................302
Turkmenistan ........................................................................................................................................305
Ukraine..................................................................................................................................................308
United Arab Emirates............................................................................................................................311
United Kingdom.....................................................................................................................................312
Uruguay.................................................................................................................................................313
Uzbekistan.............................................................................................................................................314
Venezuela .............................................................................................................................................317

iii
Vietnam .................................................................................................................................................322

INCSR 2015 Volume 1 Common Abbreviations
iv
Common Abbreviations
APEC Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation
AFRICOM U.S. Military Command for Africa
ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nations
ATS Amphetamine-Type Stimulants
CARICC Central Asia Regional Information Coordination Center
CARSI Central America Regional Security Initiative
CBP U.S. Customs and Border Protection
CBSI Caribbean Basin Security Initiative
DARE Drug Abuse Resistance Education
DEA U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration
DHS U.S. Department of Homeland Security
DOJ U.S. Department of Justice
DTO Drug Trafficking Organization
ECOWAS Economic Community of West African States
EU European Union
FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation
FIU Financial Intelligence Unit
ICE U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
ILEA International Law Enforcement Academy
INCB International Narcotics Control Board
INCSR International Narcotics Control Strategy Report
INL U.S. Department of State’s Bureau for International Narcotics
and Law Enforcement Affairs
JIATF-S Joint Interagency Task Force South
JIATF-W Joint Interagency Task Force West
MAOC-N Maritime Analysis and Operations Centre-Narcotics
MLAT Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
NIDA National Institute of Drug Abuse
OAS Organization of American States
OAS/CICAD Inter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission
ONDCP Office of National Drug Control Policy
SIU Special Investigative Unit
SOUTHCOM U.S Military Command for the Caribbean, Central and South
America
UNODC United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime
USAID U.S. Agency for International Development
USCG U.S. Coast Guard
WACSI West Africa Cooperative Security Initiative
Ha Hectare
HCL Hydrochloride (cocaine)
Kg Kilogram
MT Metric Ton

INCSR 2015 Volume 1 International Agreements
v
International Agreements
1988 UN Drug Convention – United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs
and Psychotropic Substances (1988)
UN Single Drug Convention – United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (1961 as
amended by the 1972 Protocol)
UN Psychotropic Substances Convention – United Nations Convention on Psychotropic
Substances (1971)
UNCAC – UN Convention against Corruption (2003)
UNTOC - UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (2000), and its supplementing
protocols:
Trafficking in Persons Protocol – Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in
Persons, Especially Women and Children, supplementing the United Nations Convention against
Transnational Organized Crime
Migrant Smuggling Protocol – Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Air and
Sea, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime
Firearms Protocol – Protocol against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms,
Their Parts and Components and Ammunition, supplementing the United Nations Convention
against Transnational Organized Crime

INCSR 2015 Volume 1 Introduction
1
INTRODUCTION

2
Legislative Basis for the INCSR
The Department of State’s International Narcotics Control Strategy Report (INCSR) has been
prepared in accordance with section 489 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended (the
"FAA," 22 U.S.C. § 2291). The 2015 INCSR, published in March 2015, covers the year January
1 to December 31, 2014 and is published in two volumes, the second of which covers money
laundering and financial crimes. In addition to addressing the reporting requirements of section
489 of the FAA (as well as sections 481(d)(2) and 484(c) of the FAA and section 804 of the
Narcotics Control Trade Act of 1974, as amended), the INCSR provides the factual basis for the
designations contained in the President’s report to Congress on the major drug-transit or major
illicit drug producing countries initially set forth in section 591 of the Kenneth M. Ludden
Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2002 (P.L.
107-115) (the "FOAA"), and now made permanent pursuant to section 706 of the Foreign
Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2003 (P.L. 107-228) (the "FRAA").
Section 706 of the FRAA requires that the President submit an annual report no later than
September 15 identifying each country determined by the President to be a major drug-transit
country or major illicit drug producing country. The President is also required in that report to
identify any country on the majors list that has "failed demonstrably . . . to make substantial
efforts" during the previous 12 months to adhere to international counternarcotics agreements
and to take certain counternarcotics measures set forth in U.S. law. U.S. assistance under the
current foreign operations appropriations act may not be provided to any country designated as
having "failed demonstrably" unless the President determines that the provision of such
assistance is vital to U.S. national interests or that the country, at any time after the President’s
initial report to Congress, has made "substantial efforts" to comply with the counternarcotics
conditions in the legislation. This prohibition does not affect humanitarian, counternarcotics, and
certain other types of assistance that are authorized to be provided notwithstanding any other
provision of law.
The FAA requires a report on the extent to which each country or entity that received assistance
under chapter 8 of Part I of the Foreign Assistance Act in the past two fiscal years has "met the
goals and objectives of the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs
and Psychotropic Substances" (the "1988 UN Drug Convention"). FAA § 489(a)(1)(A).
Several years ago, pursuant to The Combat Methamphetamine Enforcement Act (CMEA) (The
USA Patriot Improvement and Reauthorization Act 2005, Title VII, P.L. 109-177), amending
sections 489 and 490 of the Foreign Assistance Act (22 USC 2291h and 2291) section 722, the
INCSR was expanded to include reporting on the five countries that export the largest amounts
of methamphetamine precursor chemicals, as well as the five countries importing the largest
amounts of these chemicals and which have the highest rate of diversion of the chemicals for
methamphetamine production. This expanded reporting, which appears in this year’s INCSR
and will appear in each subsequent annual INCSR report, also includes additional information on
efforts to control methamphetamine precursor chemicals, as well as estimates of legitimate
demand for these methamphetamine precursors, prepared by most parties to the 1988 UN Drug
Convention and submitted to the International Narcotics Control Board. The CMEA also
requires a Presidential determination by March 1 of each year on whether the five countries that

3
legally exported and the five countries that legally imported the largest amount of precursor
chemicals (under FAA section 490) have cooperated with the United States to prevent these
substances from being used to produce methamphetamine or have taken adequate steps on their
own to achieve full compliance with the 1988 UN Drug Control Convention. This determination
may be exercised by the Secretary of State pursuant to Executive Order 12163 and by the Deputy
Secretary of State pursuant to State Department Delegation of Authority 245.
Although the Convention does not contain a list of goals and objectives, it does set forth a
number of obligations that the parties agree to undertake. Generally speaking, it requires the
parties to take legal measures to outlaw and punish all forms of illicit drug production,
trafficking, and drug money laundering, to control chemicals that can be used to process illicit
drugs, and to cooperate in international efforts to these ends. The statute lists actions by foreign
countries on the following issues as relevant to evaluating performance under the 1988 UN Drug
Convention: illicit cultivation, production, distribution, sale, transport and financing, and money
laundering, asset seizure, extradition, mutual legal assistance, law enforcement and transit
cooperation, precursor chemical control, and demand reduction.
In attempting to evaluate whether countries and certain entities are meeting the goals and
objectives of the 1988 UN Drug Convention, the Department has used the best information it has
available. The 2015 INCSR covers countries that range from major drug producing and drug-
transit countries, where drug control is a critical element of national policy, to small countries or
entities where drug issues or the capacity to deal with them are minimal. The reports vary in the
extent of their coverage. For key drug-control countries, where considerable information is
available, we have provided comprehensive reports. For some smaller countries or entities
where only limited information is available, we have included whatever data the responsible post
could provide.
The country chapters report upon actions taken – including plans, programs, and, where
applicable, timetables – toward fulfillment of Convention obligations. Because the 1988 UN
Drug Convention’s subject matter is so broad and availability of information on elements related
to performance under the Convention varies widely within and among countries, the
Department’s views on the extent to which a given country or entity is meeting the goals and
objectives of the Convention are based on the overall response of the country or entity to those
goals and objectives. Reports will often include discussion of foreign legal and regulatory
structures. Although the Department strives to provide accurate information, this report should
not be used as the basis for determining legal rights or obligations under U.S. or foreign law.
Some countries and other entities are not yet parties to the 1988 UN Drug Convention; some do
not have status in the United Nations and cannot become parties. For such countries or entities,
we have nonetheless considered actions taken by those countries or entities in areas covered by
the Convention as well as plans (if any) for becoming parties and for bringing their legislation
into conformity with the Convention’s requirements. Other countries have taken reservations,
declarations, or understandings to the 1988 UN Drug Convention or other relevant treaties; such
reservations, declarations, or understandings are generally not detailed in this report. For some
of the smallest countries or entities that have not been designated by the President as major illicit
drug producing or major drug-transit countries, the Department has insufficient information to

4
make a judgment as to whether the goals and objectives of the Convention are being met. Unless
otherwise noted in the relevant country chapters, the Department’s Bureau for International
Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL) considers all countries and other entities with
which the United States has bilateral narcotics agreements to be meeting the goals and objectives
of those agreements.
Information concerning counternarcotics assistance is provided, pursuant to section 489(b) of the
FAA, in section entitled "U.S. Government Assistance."

5
Major Illicit Drug Producing, Drug-Transit, Significant Source,
Precursor Chemical, and Money Laundering Countries
Section 489(a)(3) of the FAA requires the INCSR to identify:
(A) major illicit drug producing and major drug-transit countries;
(B) major sources of precursor chemicals used in the production of illicit narcotics; or
(C) major money laundering countries.
These countries are identified below.
Major Illicit Drug Producing and Major Drug-Transit Countries
A major illicit drug producing country is one in which:
(A) 1,000 hectares or more of illicit opium poppy is cultivated or harvested during a year;
(B) 1,000 hectares or more of illicit coca is cultivated or harvested during a year; or
(C) 5,000 hectares or more of illicit cannabis is cultivated or harvested during a year, unless the
President determines that such illicit cannabis production does not significantly affect the United
States. FAA § 481(e)(2).
A major drug-transit country is one:
(A) that is a significant direct source of illicit narcotic or psychotropic drugs or other controlled
substances significantly affecting the United States; or
(B) through which are transported such drugs or substances. FAA § 481(e)(5).
The following major illicit drug producing and/or drug-transit countries were identified and
notified to Congress by the President on September 14, 2014, consistent with section 706(1) of
the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107-228):
Afghanistan, The Bahamas, Belize, Bolivia, Burma, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican
Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, India, Jamaica, Laos,
Mexico, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, and Venezuela.
Of these 22 countries, Bolivia, Burma, and Venezuela were designated by the President as
having “failed demonstrably” during the previous 12 months to adhere to their obligations under
international counternarcotics agreements and take the measures set forth in section 489(a)(1) of
the FAA. The President determined, however, in accordance with provisions of Section
706(3)(A) of the FRAA, that continued support for bilateral programs in Burma and Venezuela
are vital to the national interests of the United States.
Major Precursor Chemical Source Countries
The following countries and jurisdictions have been identified to be major sources of precursor
or essential chemicals used in the production of illicit narcotics:

6
Afghanistan, Argentina, Bangladesh, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Burma, Canada, Chile,
China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Germany,
Guatemala, Hong Kong Administrative Region, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Mexico,
the Netherlands, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Republic of Korea, Singapore, South Africa,
Switzerland, Taiwan, Thailand, and the United Kingdom.
Information is provided pursuant to section 489 of the FAA in the section entitled "Chemical
Controls."
Major Money Laundering Countries
A major money laundering country is defined by statute as one "whose financial institutions
engage in currency transactions involving significant amounts of proceeds from international
narcotics trafficking." FAA § 481(e)(7). However, the complex nature of money laundering
transactions today makes it difficult in many cases to distinguish the proceeds of narcotics
trafficking from the proceeds of other serious crime. Moreover, financial institutions engaging in
transactions involving significant amounts of proceeds of other serious crime are vulnerable to
narcotics-related money laundering. This year’s list of major money laundering countries
recognizes this relationship by including all countries and other jurisdictions, whose financial
institutions engage in transactions involving significant amounts of proceeds from all serious
crime. The following countries/jurisdictions have been identified this year in this category:
Afghanistan, Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil,
British Virgin Islands, Burma, Cambodia, Canada, Cayman Islands, China, Colombia,
Costa Rica, Cyprus, Dominican Republic, France, Gaza, Germany, Greece, Guatemala,
Guernsey, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Isle of Man,
Israel, Italy, Japan, Jersey, Kenya, Latvia, Lebanon, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Macau,
Mexico, Netherlands, Nigeria, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Philippines, Russia,
Singapore, Somalia, Spain, Switzerland, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, United Arab
Emirates, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela, West Bank, and
Zimbabwe.
Further information on these countries/jurisdictions and United States money laundering
policies, as required by section 489 of the FAA, is set forth in Volume II of the INCSR in the
section entitled "Money Laundering and Financial Crimes."

7
Presidential Determination
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON September 15, 2014
Presidential Determination No. 2014-15
MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF STATE
SUBJECT: Presidential Determination on Major Drug Transit or Major Illicit Drug Producing
Countries for Fiscal Year 2015
Pursuant to Section 706(1) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2003 (Public
Law 107-228) (FRAA), I hereby identify the following countries as major drug transit and/or
major illicit drug producing countries: Afghanistan, The Bahamas, Belize, Bolivia, Burma,
Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras,
India, Jamaica, Laos, Mexico, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, and Venezuela.
A country’s presence on the foregoing list is not a reflection of its government’s counternarcotics
efforts or level of cooperation with the United States. Consistent with the statutory definition of
a major drug transit or drug producing country set forth in section 481(e)(2) and (5) of the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended (FAA), the reason major drug transit or illicit drug
producing countries are placed on the list is the combination of geographic, commercial, and
economic factors that allow drugs to transit or be produced, even if a government has carried out
the most assiduous narcotics control law enforcement measures.
Pursuant to Section 706(2)(A) of the FRAA, I hereby designate Bolivia, Burma, and Venezuela
as countries that have failed demonstrably during the previous 12 months to adhere to their
obligations under international counternarcotics agreements and take the measures set forth in
section 489(a)(1) of the FAA. Included in this report are justifications for the determinations on
Bolivia, Burma, and Venezuela, as required by Section 706(2)(B) of the FRAA. Explanations
for these decisions are published with this determination.
I have also determined, in accordance with provisions of Section 706(3)(A) of the FRAA, that
support for programs to aid Burma and Venezuela are vital to the national interests of the United
States.
International Framework for Narcotics and Crime Control
This determination highlights significant U.S. domestic drug control issues and foreign
assistance approaches to drug control. It also examines policies and programs shared by most
countries to counter the destabilizing effects of illegal drugs and transnational organized crime.
The combined aim of these undertakings is to foster sustainable citizen security to advance social
welfare, safety, and economic prosperity of vulnerable communities around the world.

8
International cooperation remains the cornerstone for reducing the threat posed by the illegal
narcotics trade and related crimes carried out by criminal organizations. The sophisticated and
effective operations of organizations challenge law enforcement officials and policy makers
everywhere. The essential underpinnings of our unified stance against criminal enterprise are
embodied in long-standing international agreements, including the 1961, 1971, and 1988 UN
Conventions; the UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime; and the UN
Convention against Corruption. A myriad of regional and sub-regional joint undertakings, such
as the 2010 Drug Strategy for the Hemisphere, adopted by the 34 members of the Organization
of American States (OAS), mirror the wide-ranging standards of the UN conventions. The
frameworks established by the UN conventions are as applicable to the contemporary world as
when they were negotiated and signed by the vast majority of UN member states.
The United States shares the view of most countries that the UN drug conventions – without
negotiation or amendment – are resilient enough to unify countries that often hold divergent
views of the causes of the international narcotics problem, while at the same time providing a
framework upon which to build the best solutions to it. The UN drug conventions, which
recognize that the suppression of international drug trafficking demands urgent attention and the
highest priority, allow sovereign nations the flexibility to develop and adapt new policies and
programs in keeping with their own national circumstances while retaining their focus on
achieving the conventions’ aim of ensuring the availability of controlled substances for medical
and scientific purposes, preventing abuse and addiction, and suppressing drug trafficking and
related criminal activities. The United States supports the view of most countries that revising
the UN drug conventions is not a prerequisite to advancing the common and shared
responsibility of international cooperation designed to enhance the positive goals we have set to
counter illegal drugs and crime.
The Challenge of Opium Poppy Production and Heroin
The 2014 UN World Drug Report states that illegal poppy cultivation and production of heroin
and opium and other derivatives are at the top of the list of global drug problems. According to
the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the latest United States Government estimates show
for the third consecutive year, in Afghanistan, which has the world’s largest opium poppy
cultivation, cultivation increased from 180,000 hectares in 2012 to 198,000 hectares in 2013.
The opium poppy trade in Afghanistan threatens domestic institutions, subverts the legal
economy, and undermines good governance and the capacity of the Afghan people. Although
less pronounced, opium poppy cultivation also increased considerably in Burma and Laos; this
situation presents similar threats in these countries as those faced by Afghanistan.
In spite of Afghanistan’s crop reduction setbacks, which include a reduction in eradication from
9,672 hectares in 2012 to 7,348 hectares in 2013, U.S. assistance has advanced the country’s
counternarcotics capacity in some areas. In particular, there have been positive developments in
Afghan programs such as interdiction, prosecutions, treatment services and alternative
livelihoods for farmers. All of this has happened in the context of a difficult security situation
and entrenched corruption. Still, opium poppy is grown in less than three percent of farmable
land; nearly 10 times more is devoted to wheat production.

9
U.S. support for Afghanistan after 2014 will focus on maintaining established infrastructure and
improving security. The United States is also working to secure more bilateral and multilateral
assistance from the international community beyond programs that are already in place. This
includes support from Canadian and European partners. At the same time, it is in the best
interest of countries in the region with high levels of opium-product abuse to support
Afghanistan’s counternarcotics efforts. This includes Afghanistan’s immediate neighbors, Iran,
Pakistan, and Russia, as well as other nations such as India and China. There is also an increase
in transshipments of Afghanistan heroin going to Canada, a development of concern that is being
addressed by Canada with support from the United States.
In the past several years, U.S. officials have noted an alarming surge in the use of heroin and are
taking many steps to confront this growing domestic problem. Survey results released in 2012
reported that nearly 700,000 American citizens used heroin, as compared to 373,000 in 2007. In
the United States, between 2006 and 2010, heroin deaths increased by 45 percent. Today,
experts understand that people from various walks of life are abusing opium products.
Significant increases have been noted in major U.S. cities, including Atlanta, Denver, Chicago,
San Diego, and Seattle. In the United States, between 2006 and 2011, heroin-involved deaths
increased by 110 percent.
The United States is particularly concerned about poppy cultivation in Mexico, the primary
supplier of illegal opium derivatives to the United States. According to the Heroin Signature
Program program carried out by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), opium
poppy products also arrive in the United States from Colombia and Guatemala, although to a
lesser extent from these countries than from Mexico. DEA reported a 324 percent increase in
heroin seizures at the Mexican border between 2009 and 2013.
The United States is increasing its heroin drug interdiction efforts as one element of a set of
measures for confronting the growing problem. Since 2011, more than 4,500 heroin related
investigations were opened in the country. Overseas, $110 million in U.S. funds have been
provided to Mexican border agencies for inspection equipment and training. Concrete success
resulting from this support includes seizure of illegal drugs and currency by Mexican authorities
valued at nearly $4 million. Similarly, U.S. foreign assistance helped Colombia seize 379
kilograms of heroin in 2013 and Guatemala eradicated a considerable amount of poppy
cultivation in the same year. Working with concerned counterparts, the United States will adjust
policy approaches and build upon existing programs, including the Mexico Merida initiative, to
counter criminal elements that are creating heroin markets in the United States and reaping
growing illegal profits.
Cocaine Production and Use
The 2014 UN World Drug Report reaffirms that Colombia, Bolivia, and Peru continue to
cultivate virtually the world’s entire supply of coca for cocaine and related products. The good
news is that illegal coca crop production, now approximately 133,700 hectares in the three
countries, is at the lowest level since authorities began to establish estimates in 1990. Moreover,
global seizures have slightly increased, according to the UN Office on Drugs and Crime
(UNODC).

10
The United States is the world’s largest consumer of illegal cocaine, followed by Brazil and
certain countries in Europe. Although DEA reports that cocaine availability declined steadily in
the United States from 2007 to 2012, the number of cocaine users has remained steady in recent
years, according to U.S. surveys.
U.S. law enforcement agencies estimate that about 84 percent of the cocaine entering the United
States passes through Central America and Mexico to reach destinations in the United States.
Based on a decline in maritime interdiction assets and diminished intelligence, there has been a
reduction in the awareness of cocaine transshipments. While recent assessments indicate an
increase in cocaine flow in the maritime transit zone, there are conflicting indicators on total
cocaine flow and continued success in combatting drug trafficking organizations will require
closing awareness gaps.
Various types of U.S. assistance, including numerous programs aimed at supporting national
efforts to interdict drugs and target major traffickers, are carried out through the Central
American Regional Security Initiative. Similar programs are supported by the United States
through the Caribbean Basin Security Initiative. These programs support national efforts to
increase law enforcement capability to confront organized crime and gangs, build judicial sector
capacity, and advance economic and social programs for at-risk youth and communities
disproportionately affected by illegal drugs and crime.
New Psychoactive Substances (NPS)
Confronting illegal production and consumption of methamphetamine in the United States, with
much of the product originating in Mexico, has been compounded by the growing problem of
NPS – also described as synthetic designer drugs. This is a dynamic industry that uses chemicals
and other substances that are frequently not controlled. According to the 2014 UN World Drug
Report, the number of NPS more than doubled over the period 2009-2013. The number of such
substances reported to UNODC, almost 500, far exceeds the psychoactive substances already
controlled by the UN conventions.
In the United States, DEA secured emergency scheduling of certain substances and statutory
changes (The Synthetic Drugs Abuse Prevention Act of 2012), banning many of these
substances, but U.S. law enforcement agencies report that substance variations to make NPS are
continually appearing, posing a serious threat to public health and unprecedented challenges to
drug awareness and treatment programs.
In 2013, the European Commission announced it would strengthen the European Union’s ability
to respond to NPS by withdrawing products used to make them from the market. This action
followed a report by the European Monitoring Center for Drugs and Drug Addiction stating that
the scale of NPS use is growing dramatically on the continent. In its most recent reports,
UNODC highlights the NPS problem in particular. In one significant initiative, UNODC is
working to create a network to exchange information on NPS use and related trends. With U.S.
assistance, another UNODC program seeks to identify the connections between precursor
chemicals and NPS. Much of this action has been proposed in resolutions by the Commission on

11
Narcotic Drugs to promote international cooperation in responding to the challenged posed by
NPS.
Drug Awareness and Demand Reduction
The international community recognizes that drug use is as much a public health problem as it is
a public safety issue. The U.S. National Drug Control Strategy stresses that prevention and
treatment must be adapted to the latest scientific knowledge and social services to help
individuals overcome their addictions. This approach has been adopted in other countries
following the call to member states by the International Narcotics Control Board to integrate
abuse prevention into public health, health promotion, and child and youth prevention programs.
More than 2,600 specialty courts in the United States have connected over 120,000 people
convicted of drug-related offenses with the community services they need to avoid future drug
use. Similar initiatives around the world, many supported by the United States, provide a variety
of alternatives to incarceration programs for non-violent offenders. These programs are integral
to scientifically based drug control policies.
Looking to the Future
Historically, U.S. foreign assistance programs have focused primarily on fighting drug
production, and have supported related law enforcement programs. This approach is still integral
to U.S. policy, but efforts today take an increasingly holistic approach. Beginning with the
current decade, efforts aimed at preventative measures in U.S. assistance programs are designed
to enhance overall citizen security by challenging both transnational and local security threats.
These efforts involve United States partnerships including the public and private sectors to
achieve our common security goals and create safe communities. This is carried out through law
enforcement training, judicial and human rights training, and alternative development,
emphasizing that such efforts must be designed to create and maintain safe environments.
In many nations, especially in Central and South America, countries are actively seeking to
strengthen their inter- and intra-regional cooperation and exchange of information about best
practices for counternarcotics and crime control law enforcement activities relative to broad
citizen security. Taken as a whole, they are intended to promote respect for the rule of law and
human rights and to empower citizens to foster law-abiding communities consistent with
long-term sustainability.
You are hereby authorized and directed to submit this report, with the enclosed memoranda of
justification regarding Bolivia, Burma, and Venezuela, under Section 706 of the FRAA, to the
Congress, and publish it in the Federal Register.
/S/
Barack Obama

12
MEMORANDUM OF JUSTIFICATION FOR MAJOR ILLICIT
DRUG TRANSIT OR ILLICIT DRUG PRODUCING COUNTRIES
FOR FY 2015
Bolivia
During the past 12 months, the Bolivian government has failed demonstrably to make sufficient
efforts to meet its obligations under international counternarcotics agreements or to uphold the
counternarcotics measures set forth in Section 489 (a)(1) of the Foreign Assistance Act (FAA) of
1961, as amended.
Bolivia is one of the world’s three largest producers of coca leaf for cocaine and other illegal
drug products. Bolivia seriously compromised its ability to interdict drugs and major traffickers
when the country expelled U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) personnel in 2009,
harming its ability to conduct counternarcotics operations and cooperate on international illicit
drug interdiction. Due to a lack of sufficient cooperation from the Bolivian government on
counternarcotics activities, the United States government closed the State Department’s
International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs section at U.S. Embassy La Paz in 2013.
Bolivia has not maintained adequate controls over licit coca markets to prevent diversion to
illegal narcotics production nor closed illegal coca markets. Bolivia also failed to develop and
execute a national drug control strategy. Unlike other coca growing countries, Bolivia has not
implemented many of the UN-mandated controls over coca. In 2011, Bolivia also withdrew
from the 1961 UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, one of the essential cornerstones of
international cooperation in drug-related matters, and re-acceded in 2013 with a reservation
permitting coca to be used only within Bolivia and for traditional, cutural and medicinal
purposes. At the same time, Bolivia continues to promote the worldwide cultivation and
comercialization of coca leaf products, contrary to the conventions’ foundational premises and
Bolivia’s own reservation. Given the substantial number of coca crops already grown in Bolivia,
the difficulty the country has had policing illegally grown coca, and the diversion from licit coca
markets to illicit ones, this reservation encourages coca growth by promoting cultivation and
commercialization and adds to the complication of distinguishing between illegally and legally
grown coca. The United States remains concerned about Bolivia’s intent by this action to limit,
redefine, and circumvent the scope and control for illegal substances as they appear in the UN
Schedule I list of narcotics. The United States was one of 15 states parties formally objecting to
Bolivia’s reservation to the 1961 Convention. Objections from 61 states were needed to prevent
Bolivia’s reservation.
Bolivian government policies and actions are not in line with international drug control
standards. Such policies include Bolivia’s promotion of the idea that coca leaf can be used
generally for commercial products, as well as its de facto allowance of 20,000 hectares of legal
cultivation, 8,000 hectares over the 12,000 hectare limit set by the country’s own law and
roughly 6,000 more than the European Union determined was needed for Bolivia’s consumption
needs.

13
On November 19, 2013, the Bolivian government released key findings of a studyed funded by
the European Union to identify the amount of legal cultivation need to support traditional coca
consumption. Initial reports indicate that no more than 14,705 hectares of coca are needed.
The United States encourages Bolivia to strengthen its efforts to achieve tighter controls over the
trade in coca leaf to stem diversion to cocaine processing, in line with international treaties;
protect its citizens from the deleterious effects of drugs, corruption, and drug trafficking; and
significantly reduce coca cultivation.
To diminish Bolivia’s appeal as a convenient trafficking venue for drug smuggling, further
government action is required. Bolivia needs to improve the legal and regulatory environment
for security and justice sector institutions to effectively combat drug production and trafficking,
money laundering, corruption, and other transnational crime, and to bring criminal enterprise to
justice through the rule of law.
While Bolivia continues to make drug seizures and arrests of implicated individuals, the Bolivian
judicial system is not adequately processing these cases to completion. Bolivian law requires
that an arrestee be formally charged within 18 months of arrest. An overwhelming majority of
the incarcerated population in Bolivia, however, has not been formally charged in accordance
with Bolivian law. The number of individuals who have been convicted and sentenced on drug
charges in Bolivia has remained stagnant over the last several years and has not increased in
proportion to the number of arrests.
In accord with U.S. legislation, the determination that Bolivia has failed demonstrably to make
substantial efforts to adhere to its obligations under international counternarcotics agreements
and to take counternarcotics measures set forth in the FAA, does not result in the withholding of
humanitarian and counternarcotics assistance.

14
MEMORANDUM OF JUSTIFICATION FOR MAJOR DRUG
TRANSIT OR ILLICIT DRUG PRODUCING COUNTRIES FOR
FY 2015
Burma
During the past 12 months, the Burmese government has failed demonstrably to make sufficient
counternarcotics measures set forth in Section 489 (a)(1) of the Foreign Assistance Act of
1961(FAA) , as amended. However, during this period, the Burmese government has undertaken
political and economic reforms to address many of the United States’ longstanding concerns
regarding governance, democratization, and human rights. Given the government’s
demonstrated commitment to reform and increased collaboration with the U.S. government, it is
in the interest of the U.S. government to grant Burma a national interest waiver.
According to the 2014 International Narcotics Control Strategy Report (INCSR), Burma remains
the second largest cultivator of illegal opium poppy in the world. Recent estimates show that
Burma had 57,814 hectares under cultivation in 2013, a 13 percent increase reported over 2012.
Although opium poppy and/or heroin are trafficked through all of Burma’s porous borders, the
most significant routes lead to China and Thailand. The Mekong River is also a vital trafficking
route and there are growing signs of new routes to the western part of Burma for onward
trafficking to South Asia. Since 1996, there has been a sharp increase in production,
consumption, and export of synthetic drugs, especially amphetamine-type stimulants (ATS).
ATS attributed to Burma are trafficked along new routes to Thailand, China, and Laos. Reports
from India, Nepal, and Bangladesh indicate that South Asia is also increasingly affected by the
trafficking of methamphetamine pills originating in Burma.
According to Burmese statistics, law enforcement officers destroyed 12,288 hectares of opium
poppies in 2013 compared to 23,584 hectares in 2012 and 7,058 hectares in 2011. Such
government statistics cannot be independently verified. Furthermore, U.S. and UN reporting
often reflect the fact that eradication occurs after the poppies have been harvested.
On the positive side, the Government of Burma has intensified its focus on increasing the
country’s capacity to conduct counternarcotics activities. The Central Committee for Drug
Abuse Control (CCDAC), chaired by the Minister of Home Affairs, is in the process of
restructuring and expanding its counternarcotics task force, pledging to fight drug production,
trafficking, and drug use. Over the course of the past year, the CCDAC has expanded its task
forces from 26 to 50 units located throughout the country, with a greater presence in high-traffic
areas such as Shan and Rakhine states. Notwithstanding these efforts, counternarcotics police
officers still lack adequate training and resources to sufficiently address the breadth of the
country’s narcotics problems.
Burma has indicated a willingness to work regionally on counternarcotics initiatives, including
those coordinated through the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). Burma continues to
cooperate with the United States and is increasing engagement with the international community.

15
Through the Lower Mekong Initiative Program, for instance, Burma, Cambodia, China, Laos,
Thailand, and Vietnam are cooperating regularly in the fight against illegal drugs and other
forms of transnational crime which pose a significant threat to the region.
Despite these improvements, Burma’s current counternarcotics performance is not sufficient to
meet its international counternarcotics cooperation obligations. The Burmese government needs
to dedicate adequate resources to its counternarcotics efforts, increase illegal crop eradication in
a timely and comprehensive manner, and redouble its efforts to obtain and maintain ceasefires
with ethnic minorities, which would allow for increased access to areas with high drug
cultivation, trafficking, and use. In addition, credible reporting from non-governmental
organizations and the media claim that mid-level military officers and government officials are
engaged in drug-related corruption, though no military officer above the rank of colonel has ever
been charged with drug-related corruption. As a matter of policy, the Burmese government does
not encourage or facilitate the illicit production or distribution of drugs, or the laundering of
proceeds from illegal drug transactions.
The U.S. decision to grant Burma a national interest waiver for the third year in a row reflects
political change taking place in Burma and the country’s interest in improving its international
drug control cooperation. Burma and the United States carried out a joint opium yield survey in
early 2013 and supported Burmese participation at the International Law Enforcement Academy
in Bangkok. The United States is supporting expanded counternarcotics programming including
a poppy cultivation survey carried out by the UNODC, interdiction training opportunities, and
drug demand reduction activities.
In accordance with Section 481 (e)(4) of the FAA, the determination that Burma has failed
demonstrably does not result in the withholding of humanitarian and counternarcotics assistance.
It is in the vital interest of the United States to grant a national interest waiver to Burma.

16
MEMORANDUM OF JUSTIFICATION FOR MAJOR DRUG
TRANSIT OR ILLICIT DRUG PRODUCING COUNTRIES FOR
FY 2015
Venezuela
During the past 12 months, the Venezuelan government failed demonstrably to make sufficient
counternarcotics measures set forth in section 489(a) (1) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961
(FAA), as amended. A national interest waiver for 2015 for Venezuela permits support for
programs vital to the national interests of the United States, such as democracy building and
human rights advocacy.
Venezuela’s porous western border with Colombia, weak judicial systems, selective and
inadequate international counternarcotics cooperation, and permissive and corrupt environment
make the country one of the preferred trafficking routes for illegal drugs leaving South America.
As a matter of government policy, Venezuela does not encourage or facilitate illegal activity
involving drug trafficking. However, credible reporting indicates that individual members of the
government and security forces engaged in or facilitated drug trafficking activities. In the last
two years, nearly all detected illegal drug flights arriving in Honduras, the region’s largest center
for airborne drug smuggling, originated from Venezuela. Moreover, the majority of detected
illegal flights departing Central America and returning to South America landed first in western
Venezuela. In 2013, Venezuelan officials also reported disabling and/or destroying 30 aircraft
and destroying 108 clandestine airstrips. As implemented, some of these actions are contrary to
international civil aviation conventions to which Venezuela is a signatory.
Venezuelan authorities reported seizing 46 metric tons of illegal drugs in 2013 compared to 45 in
2012. While Venezuela publically reports such seizures, it does not systematically share the data
or evidence needed to verify the destruction of the drugs. The government also published
statistics on arrests and convictions for drug possession and trafficking, though it did not provide
information on the nature or severity of the drug arrests or convictions. Venezuela is party to all
relevant international drug and crime control agreements, including the 1988 UN Convention.
Since ceasing formal cooperation with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration in 2005, the
Venezuelan government has maintained only limited counternarcotics cooperation with the
United States. Cooperation consists mainly of coordination of fugitive deportations from
Venezuela to the United States and bilateral maritime interdiction operations. Venezuela,
however, did not provide follow-up information to the United States on drug trafficking
organizations involved or the prosecution of suspects as it relates to maritime interdictions.
Venezuela’s limited and ad hoc international counternarcotics cooperation casts doubt on the
government’s intent to uphold its international commitment to combat drug trafficking.
The Venezuelan government again failed to take action against government and military officials
known to be linked to the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and other drug
trafficking organizations. In August 2013, pursuant to the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin

17
Designation Act, the U.S. Department of the Treasury designated a former Venezuelan military
officer a drug kingpin. This followed Treasury’s 2008 and 2011 designations of senior
Venezuelan government officials for acting on behalf of the FARC in support of narcotics and
arms trafficking activities.
On July 27, 2014, the Government of the Netherlands ordered the release of designated criminal
Kingpin and wanted Venezuelan narcotics trafficker Hugo Carvajal Barrios from detention in
Aruba. The United States remains disturbed by credible reports that the Venezuelan government
threatened the Governments of Aruba and the Netherlands, along with others, in its attempts to
obtain Carvajal’s release.
Pursuant to section 706 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2003, while
Venezuela has failed demonstrably, a national interest waiver under the FAA allows the
continuation of U.S. bilateral assistance programs to Venezuela; counternarcotics and
humanitarian assistance can be provided without a national interest waiver.

INCSR 2015 Volume 1 Policy and Program Developments
18
POLICY AND PROGRAM DEVELOPMENTS

19
Overview
Volume 1 of the 2015 International Narcotics Control Strategy Report summarizes the steps
taken by over 80 governments over the previous year to protect their citizens from the harms of
dangerous drugs. This is a shared challenge for all governments, and as this report illustrates, it
is a perpetual process. Some countries have continued to update legislation and reform state
institutions necessary for effective criminal justice responses to drug trafficking. Many also
continue to implement demand reduction and treatment programs to avoid the risk of losing the
next generation to drug addiction. Because transnational drug trafficking organizations
continuously seek to expand, diversify, and extend their markets, combating them requires
effective international cooperation between governments and with other stakeholders, and this
cooperation is also described within the report.
The United States is committed to playing a leading role internationally to reduce the use and
availability of illegal drugs, including by assisting our partners to develop effective institutions
necessary for sustainable progress. An underlying principle behind U.S. assistance in this field is
the importance of addressing the full continuum of criminal justice institutions – police,
prosecutors, courts and corrections. Inadequate capacity in any one of these components can
compromise the effectiveness of a country’s overall ability to bring criminals to justice.
Corruption can inflict exponentially worse harm, particularly given the billions of dollars
available to drug criminals. Countries that have achieved lasting success in curbing the influence
of drug trafficking and other forms of organized crime have prioritized measures to prevent
corruption, and U.S. assistance also promotes and advances anti-corruption reforms consistent
with international standards and best practices.
Another precept that has been demonstrated repeatedly is that foreign assistance can only
supplement reform efforts that are initiated and led by host governments. The ultimate success
of these efforts hinges on the actions and commitment of these countries themselves. U.S.
assistance is directed by the requests of our international partners, and host governments
determine what forms of assistance are best suited to their needs.
The most urgent U.S. assistance priorities for 2015 will be to assist governments that have
clearly demonstrated the political will to reform and bolster their domestic institutions, in
countries and regions that are most threatened by the destabilizing influence of criminal
organizations and where these organizations most directly threaten the health and safety of U.S.
citizens. The United States has a critical interest in ensuring that legitimate governments have
the capacity to exercise sovereign authority throughout their national territories, in order to
safeguard the rights and safety of their own citizens as well as ours. This is an essential capacity
that governments must have in place for the effective protection and promotion of their citizens’
human rights and fundamental freedoms. It must also be supported by the contributions of
educators, the media, civil society and the business community – who play critical roles in
helping to lay the economic and social groundwork for effective criminal justice institutions to
operate.

20
In terms of law enforcement cooperation, we will continue to work with international partners to
focus on the criminal organizations that traffic the largest volumes of the most dangerous drugs.
Prioritizing resources to target the most dangerous criminal enterprises is both strategically
sound and fiscally prudent. For much of the past four decades, U.S. efforts have focused on
preventing drugs originating from South America from entering the United States.
Overwhelmingly, these efforts have focused on cocaine, and beginning approximately about a
decade ago, on methamphetamine. These drugs inflicted the most harm on communities and
generated the largest profits for criminal enterprises, fueling corruption in key regional allies.
But consumption patterns have shifted in the United States, and cocaine use has declined
dramatically, by up to 50 percent according to some estimates. Drug threats continuously shift
and evolve, and international cooperation to counter these challenges must involve similar
adaptability.
One of the most unwelcome recent developments has been the resurgence of heroin use within
the United States. Long overshadowed by cocaine as a threat, this heavily addictive drug is
staging a comeback in the United States among a new generation of users who have been
introduced to opiates through prescription opioids. Unlike coca, which grows in only three
Andean countries, opium poppy grows in nearly every region of the world. Because it is an
annual crop with multiple harvests per year, it is much harder to eliminate, and once harvested,
opium gum remains viable as a narcotic for up to several years, allowing traffickers to stockpile
it. The vast majority of the world’s opium originates in Asia, particularly in Afghanistan and to
a lesser extent Burma, but most of the heroin available within the United States originates within
the Western Hemisphere. The United States and the governments of countries in our hemisphere
where opium poppy is cultivated – Mexico, Colombia and Guatemala – work closely together to
reduce the availability of this old scourge, and these governments continued to implement robust
programs to eradicate poppy cultivation in 2014, destroying over 21,000 hectares of opium
poppy. The United States will continue working with these governments to reduce heroin
supplies, promote demand reduction and target the various steps in the supply-chain used by
trafficking networks.
Other drug threats besides heroin continue to evolve, impacting various countries and regions
differently. Cocaine consumption continues to grow in many countries and regions where it was
uncommon only a decade or so ago, threatening public health and safety in these countries and
undermining the progress that governments in the Andean region have made in reducing
production and encouraging alternative livelihoods. Most regions of the world are threatened by
the ongoing spread of synthetic drugs, including new psychoactive substances (NPS) that are
produced and introduced faster than they can be banned. The United States will work with the
UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs and other international partners to consider more flexible,
innovative, and forward-looking approaches to control NPS, including the use of provisional
scheduling in cases where a quick, coordinated international response can help protect the public.
We will also seek to promote greater cooperation between governments and the private sector to
prevent the diversion of chemicals needed to produce illegal drugs from legitimate industry,
working in close cooperation with the International Narcotics Control Board and other like-
minded partners.

21
For all manner of dangerous drugs, the United States will continue to share examples of effective
practices with international partners that face similar challenges in reducing demand for these
substances, and we will support capacity-building and training activities for service providers in
drug prevention, intervention, treatment, and recovery. Drug threats can metastasize quickly
across national borders, and sharing these hard-learned lessons is essential in order to keep up
with shifting drug markets. The United States looks forward to using the 2016 UN General
Assembly Special Session on Drugs as an opportunity to further identify what has worked and
what challenges remain.
It took many decades for illicit drugs to develop into the global threat now recognized by all
governments. It will take similar long-term perseverance to reduce illegal drug use and the
criminal enterprises that promote it, to the point where it no longer threatens the sovereignty of
governments or endangers generations of users. Ultimately, success will require the cumulative
impact of multiple, incremental steps taken by committed international partners. The United
States will continue to provide leadership and assistance to its partners in this ongoing challenge.

22
Demand Reduction
Drug demand reduction is a key foreign policy tool for addressing the interconnected threats of
drugs, crime, and violence. It is also a critical component in efforts to stop the spread of
HIV/AIDS in countries with high numbers of intravenous drug users. Consequently, the goal of
demand reduction strategies calls for a comprehensive, balanced approach to the drug-problem
that targets prevention, treatment, recovery, research, and international cooperation.
Recognizing that drug addiction is a major public health threat, and that drug addiction is a
preventable and treatable disease, many countries are requesting INL-sponsored technical
assistance to improve development of effective policy and programs. INL works closely with
international partners to coordinate and place into practice capacity building and training
activities for service providers in drug prevention, treatment, and recovery. In addition, INL
promotes the sharing of critical information and evidence-based studies, in order to promote and
preserve the stability of societies that are threatened by the narcotics trade.
The program has three major objectives: (1) significantly reduce drug use, related crime, and
violence in targeted country populations, (2) significantly delay onset of first use in the targeted
country population and (3) improve treatment delivery. In achieving these objectives, INL
supports the following:
 Capacity building and training aimed to educate governments and public organizations on
science-based and best practices in drug prevention, treatment and recovery;
 Development of drug-free community coalitions internationally, involving law enforcement and
public/private social institutions;
 Research, development, and evaluation efforts to determine the effectiveness of drug prevention
and treatment programs; and
 Dissemination of science-based information and knowledge transfer through multilateral and
regional organizations.
Recognizing that there are gender differences in the development and pattern of substance use
disorders, INL is also supporting technical assistance addressing gender-related drug abuse and
related violence.
Significant completed and ongoing INL-funded demand reduction projects for Fiscal Year (FY)
2014 include:
Universal Prevention Curriculum: INL’s Universal Prevention Curriculum (UPC) is an eight-
course training program for prevention coordinators based on UNODC’s Standards for Drug Use
Prevention, offering specialists and policymakers a framework for how to approach prevention in
a variety of settings such as family, school, workplace, and the community. Seven of the
curricula were pilot tested in FY2014 with the eighth occurring at the beginning of FY 2015.
Child Addiction Initiative: INL is supporting the development of evidence-based training to
establish effective and appropriate drug treatment to addicted children aged 12 and under. This

23
initiative is in response to increasing reports of acute and growing substance use among children
in Asia, Africa and South America, where age-appropriate treatment may be unavailable or not
scientifically sound. Working with a panel of global child drug addiction experts, INL
developed six child-focused psychosocial and pharmacological treatment training courses to
serve as a tool to help strengthen international capacities in this field.
Global Treatment Mapping: INL is partnering with five international organizations to map the
treatment capacity in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. The mapping will form a living registry
of all substance abuse treatment services and indicate the type of services offered, targeted
groups, and capacity, among other items. The mapping will help identify the characteristics of
national treatment systems and areas requiring assistance.
Women Drug Treatment Initiatives: INL is supporting research-based prevention, treatment,
and recovery programs in high-risk countries to improve services for addicted women and their
children, a chronically under-served and stigmatized population. INL also supports the
development of a training curriculum that addresses the unique needs of female addicts
worldwide and is currently in the process of translating the entire curriculum into Spanish.
Pregnant and Addicted Women: INL collaborated with the UN Office on Drugs and Crime
(UNODC), the World Health Organization and Johns Hopkins University to update the first
universal protocols for pharmacological detoxification and psycho-social interventions for the
treatment of pregnant and addicted women. The guidelines for the treatment of substance use
disorders during pregnancy will provide guidance and support for front-line service providers
around the world in developing treatment and prevention interventions for pregnant women.
UNODC: INL continues to support UNODC global programs that provide comprehensive
treatment provider training and technical assistance to improve treatment delivery systems in
Asia, Africa and Latin America. The primary emphasis of these initiatives is to share drug
treatment best practices with the aim to improve the quality of services and to guide policy
makers in programming. INL is also embarking on collaboration with UNODC to develop the
world’s first international standards on substance treatment.
Colombo Plan and Organization of American States: INL supports the work of the Colombo
Plan, UNODC, and the Organization of American States to establish a national-level training
and certification system for drug addiction counselors, aimed at improving the delivery of drug
treatment services and management skills in select countries of Asia, Africa, and Latin America.
This professionalization of treatment leads to higher quality interventions, improved treatment
outcomes, lower relapse rates, and overall greater confidence in the treatment system. The basic
level of the Universal Treatment Curriculum is currently being utilized in over 30 countries.
Intermediate and advances courses are underway.
Drug-Free Communities: INL supports the drug-free communities program which assists
community groups in forming and sustaining effective community anti-drug coalitions that fight
illegal drugs. The goal of the coalitions is to bring citizens together to prevent and reduce drug
use among youth. INL support has resulted in the establishment of approximately 120 active
coalitions in several communities in 17 countries around the world.

24
Afghanistan: INL currently supports 97 residential and outpatient treatment centers in
Afghanistan serving nearly 30,000 people per year. The centers provide treatment for adult
males and females, adolescent males, adolescent females, and children. INL also supports
prevention programs throughout Afghanistan, including the delivery of preventive drug
education in the school curricula, mobile exhibit and street theater programs, and engagement of
religious leaders in supporting drug prevention activities.

25
Methodology for U.S. Government Estimates of
Illegal Drug Production
Introduction
Illegal narcotics are grown, refined, trafficked, and sold on the street by criminal enterprises that
attempt to conceal every step of the process. Accurate estimates of such criminal activity are
difficult to produce. The estimates on illicit drug production presented in the INCSR represent
the United States government’s best effort to sketch the current dimensions of the international
drug problem. They are based on agricultural surveys conducted with satellite imagery and
scientific studies of crop yields and the likely efficiency of typical illicit refining labs. As we do
every year, we publish these estimates with an important caveat: they are estimates. While we
must express our estimates as numbers, these numbers should not be seen as precise figures.
Rather, they represent the midpoint of a band of statistical probability that gets wider as
additional variables are introduced and as we move from cultivation to harvest to final refined
drug. Although these estimates can be useful for determining trends, even the best U.S.
government estimates are ultimately only approximations.
As needed, we revise our estimate process-and occasionally the estimates themselves-in the light
of field research. The clandestine, violent nature of the illegal drug trade makes such field
research difficult. Geography is also an impediment, as the harsh terrain on which many drugs
are cultivated is not always easily accessible. This is particularly relevant given the tremendous
geographic areas that must be covered, and the difficulty of collecting reliable information over
diverse and treacherous terrain. Weather also impacts our ability to gather data, particularly in
the Andes, where cloud-cover can be a major problem.
Improved technologies and analysis techniques may also produce revisions to United States
government estimates of potential drug production. This is typical of annualized figures for most
other areas of statistical tracking that must be revised year to year, whether the subject of
analysis is the size of the U.S. wheat crop, population figures, or the reports of the
unemployment rate. When possible, we apply these new techniques to previous years’ data and
adjust appropriately, but often, especially in the case of new technologies, we can only apply
them prospectively. For the present, these illicit drug statistics represent the state of the art. As
new information becomes available and as the art and science improve, so will the accuracy of
the estimates.
Cultivation Estimates
With limited personnel and technical resources, we cannot look at an entire country for any hint
of illicit cultivation. Analysts must, therefore concentrate their efforts on those areas that are
most likely to have cultivation. Each year they review eradication data, seizure data, law
enforcement investigations information, the previous year’s imagery, and other information to
determine the areas likely to have cultivation, and revise and update the search area if possible.
They then estimate cultivation in the new survey area using proven statistical techniques.

26
The resultant estimates meet the U.S. government’s need for an annual estimate of cultivation for
each country. They also help with eradication, interdiction and other law enforcement
operations. As part of the effort to provide a better and more comprehensive assessment, the
areas surveyed are often expanded and changed, so direct comparison with previous year
estimates may not be possible.
Production Estimates
Illicit crop productivity depends upon a number of factors. Changes in weather, farming
techniques, soil fertility, and disease prevalence can produce widely varying results from year to
year and place to place. Although most illicit drug crop areas are not easily accessible to the
United States government, making scientific information difficult to obtain, we continually strive
to improve our production estimates. The relative productivity of poppy crops can be estimated
using imagery, and our confidence in coca leaf yield estimates continues to improve in the past
few years as a result of field studies conducted in Latin America. Such studies led to a reduction
in our estimates of average productivity for fields that had been sprayed with herbicide, but not
completely destroyed. In such fields, some, but not all of the coca bushes survive. The farmers
of the illicit crop either plant new bushes among the surviving plants or let what is left grow until
harvest. In either case, the average yield of such plots is considerably less than if it had not been
sprayed. Multiple studies in the same growing area over several years have helped us understand
and measure the effects of eradication and other factors average yield.
Coca fields which are less than a year old (“new fields”) produce much less leaf than mature
fields. In Colombia, for example, fields might get their first small harvest at six months of age;
in Bolivia fields are usually not harvested in their first year. The U.S. government estimates
include the proportion of new fields detected each year and adjust leaf production accordingly.
Processing Estimates
The wide variation in processing efficiency achieved by traffickers complicates the task of
estimating the quantity of cocaine or heroin that could be refined from a crop. Differences in the
origin and quality of the raw material used, the technical processing method employed, the size
and sophistication of laboratories, the skill and experience of local workers and chemists, and
decisions made in response to enforcement pressures all affect production.
The U.S. government estimates for coca leaf, cocaine, marijuana, opium, and heroin production
are potential estimates; that is, it is assumed that all of the coca, marijuana, and poppy grown is
harvested and processed into illicit drugs. This is a reasonable assumption for coca leaf in
Colombia. In Bolivia and Peru, however, the U.S. government potential cocaine production
estimates are overestimated to some unknown extent since significant amounts of coca leaf are
locally chewed and used in products such as coca tea. In Southwest and Southeast Asia, it is not
unrealistic to assume that virtually all poppy is harvested for opium gum, but substantial amounts
of the opium are consumed as opium rather than being processed into heroin. (The proportion of
opium ultimately processed into heroin is unknown.)
Other International Estimates

27
The United States helps fund estimates done by the United Nations in some countries. These
estimates use slightly different methodologies, but also use a mix of imagery and ground-based
observations. The UN estimates are often used to help determine the response of the
international donor community to specific countries or regions.
There have been some efforts, for Colombia in particular, for the United States and the UN to
understand each other’s methodologies in the hope of improving both sets of estimates. These
efforts are ongoing.
This report also includes data on drug production, trafficking, seizures, and consumption that
come from host governments or NGOs. Such data is attributed to the source organization,
especially when we cannot independently verify it.

28
Note on Mexico marijuana
production: No production estimates for 2009-2013 due to lack of reliable yield data
Worldwide Potential Illicit Drug Production 2006-2014
(all figures in metric tons)
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Opium
Afghanistan 5,644 8,000 5,500 5,300 3,200 4,400 4,300 5,500 6,300
Burma 230 270 340 305 530 450 795 in process
Colombia 37 15 17 13
Guatemala 4 6
in
process 14
Laos 8.5 6 17 12 23 57
Mexico 108 150 325 425 300 250 219
in
process in process
Pakistan 36 26 26
in
process in process
Total Opium 6,064 8,441 6,208 6,085 4,053 5,161 4,525
Coca Leaf
Bolivia 37,000 38,500 36,500 35,500 34,000 39,500 32,500
in
process in process
Colombia 147,000 134,000 82,500 77,500 69,500 52,500 48,000
in
process in process
Peru 54,500 43,500 44,000 46,000 66,500 62,500 58,500
in
process in process
Total Coca Leaf* 238,500 216,000 163,000 159,000 170,000 154,500 139,000
in
process
Potential Pure
Cocaine
Bolivia 115 130 165 165 160 190 155
in
process in process
Colombia 510 470 280 280 255 190 175
in
process in process
Peru 265 210 215 225 325 305 290 305 in process
Total Potential
Pure Cocaine 890 810 660 670 740 685 620
Potential Export
Quality Cocaine
Bolivia 130 140 180 185 180 215 180
in
process in process
Colombia 600 570 350 370 345 255 225
in
process in process
Peru 295 240 245 260 375 375 375 385 in process
Total Potential
Pure Cocaine 1,025 950 775 815 900 845 780
Cannabis
Mexico
(marijuana) 15,500 15,800 21,500
Total Cannabis 15,500 15,800 21,500

29
Worldwide Illicit Drug Crop Cultivation 2006-
2014
(all figures in hectares)
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Poppy
Afghanistan 172,600 202,000 157,000 131,000 119,000 115,000 180,000 198,000 211,000
Burma 21,000 21,700 22,500 19,000 45,500 36,500 51,000 In process
Colombia 2,300 1,000 1,100 800
Guatemala 220 310 650 640
Laos 1,700 1,100 1,900 940 1,800 4,400
Mexico 5,100 6,900 15,000 19,500 14,000 12,000 10,500 11,000 in process
Pakistan 980 700 705 755 4,300 in process
Total Poppy 203,680 232,700 197,100 172,245 180,300 168,120 191,565 264,950
Coca
Bolivia 21,500 24,000 26,500 29,000 29,000 25,500 25,000 in process in process
Colombia 157,000 167,000 119,000 116,000 100,000 83,000 78,000 80,500 in process
Peru 42,000 36,000 41,000 40,000 53,000 49,500 50,500 59,500 59,500
Total Coca 220,500 227,000 186,500 185,000 182,000 158,000 153,500 140,000
Cannabis
Mexico 8,600 8,800 12,000 17,500 16,500 12,000 11,500 13,000 in process
Total Cannabis 8,600 8,800 12,000 17,500 16,500 12,000 11,500 13,000
Note on Colombia
poppy cultivation: No estimates in 2005, 2008, and 2010-2013 due to cloud cover.
Note on Guatemala
poppy cultivation: 2011 survey limited to fall season in San Marcos and Huehuetenango only.
Note on Laos poppy
cultivation: Estimates for 2009-2010 are for Phongsali only. Survey area for 2011 was significantly expanded to include parts of Louang Namtha.
Note on Mexico poppy
cultivation: 2011 and later surveys incorporate a major methodological change; 2005-2010 estimates are indicative of trends only and overstate actual cultivation.
Note on Pakistan
poppy cultivation: 2005, 2006, and 2008 estimates are for Bara River Valley in Khyber Agency only. 2009 estimate is for Khyber, Mohmand, and Bajaur Agencies only.

30
Parties to UN Conventions
(with dates ratified/acceded)
As of 31 December, 2014
Country Convention
Against Transnational
Organized Crime
1988 UN Drug
Convention
Convention
Against Corruption
1. Afghanistan 24 September 2003 14 February 1992 25 August 2008
2. Albania 21 August 2002 27 June 2001 25 May 2006
3. Algeria 7 October 2002 9 May 1995 25 August 2004
4. Andorra 22 September 2011 23 July 1999
5. Angola 1 April 2013 26 October 2005 29 August 2006
6. Antigua and Barbuda 24 July 2002 5 April 1993 21 June 2006
7. Argentina 19 November 2002 28 June 1993 28 August 2006
8. Armenia 1 July 2003 13 September 1993 8 March 2007
9. Australia 27 May 2004 16 November 1992 7 December 2005
10. Austria 23 September 2004 11 July 1997 11 January 2006
11. Azerbaijan 30 October 2003 22 September 1993 1 November 2005
12. Bahamas 26 September 2008 30 January 1989 10 January 2008
13. Bahrain 7 June 2004 7 February 1990 5 October 2010
14. Bangladesh 13 July 2011 11 October 1990 27 February 2007
15. Barbados 11 November 2014 15 October 1992
16. Belarus 25 June 2003 15 October 1990 17 February 2005
17. Belgium 11 August 2004 25 October 1995 25 September 2008
18. Belize 26 September 2003 24 July 1996
19. Benin 30 August 2004 23 May 1997 14 October 2004
20. Bhutan 27 August 1990
21. Bolivia 10 October 2005 20 August 1990 5 December 2005
22. Bosnia and Herzegovina 24 April 2002 1 September 1993 26 October 2006
23. Botswana 29 August 2002 13 August 1996 27 June 2011
24. Brazil 29 January 2004 17 July 1991 15 June 2005
25. Brunei Darussalam 25 March 2008 12 November 1993 2 December 2008
26. Bulgaria 5 December 2001 24 September 1992 20 September 2006
27. Burkina Faso 15 May 2002 2 June 1992 10 October 2006
28. Burundi 24 May 2012 18 February 1993 10 March 2006

31
29. Cambodia 12 December 2005 7 July 2005 5 September 2007
30. Cameroon 6 February 2006 28 October 1991 6 February 2006
31. Canada 13 May 2002 05 July 1990 2 October 2007
32. Cape Verde 15 July 2004 8 May 1995 23 April 2008
33. Central African Republic 14 September 2004 15 October 2001 6 October 2006
34. Chad 18 August 2009 9 June 1995
35. Chile 29 November 2004 13 March 1990 13 September 2006
36. China 23 September 2003 25 October 1989 13 January 2006
37. Colombia 4 August 2004 10 June 1994 27 October 2006
38. Comoros 25 September 2003 1 March 2000 11 October 2012
39. Congo 3 March 2004 13 July 2006
40. Cook Islands 4 March 2004 22 February 2005 17 October 2011
41. Costa Rica 24 July 2003 8 February 1991 21 March 2007
42. Cote d’Ivoire 25 October 2012 25 November 1991 25 October 2012
43. Croatia 24 January 2003 26 July 1993 24 April 2005
44. Cuba 9 February 2007 12 June 1996 9 February 2007
45. Cyprus 22 April 2003 25 May 1990 23 February 2009
46. Czech Republic 24 September 2013 30 December 1993 29 November 2013
47. Democratic People’s
Republic of Korea
19 March 2007
48. Democratic Republic
of the Congo
28 October 2005 28 October 2005 23 September 2010
49. Denmark 30 September 2003 19 December 1991 26 December 2006
50. Djibouti 20 April 2005 22 February 2001 20 April 2005
51. Dominica 17 May 2013 30 June 1993 28 May 2010
52. Dominican Republic 26 October 2006 21 September 1993 26 October 2006
53. Ecuador 17 September 2002 23 March 1990 15 September 2005
54. Egypt 5 March 2004 15 March 1991 25 February 2005
55. El Salvador 18 March 2004 21 May 1993 1 July 2004
56. Equatorial Guinea 7 February 2003
57. Eritrea 25 September 2014 30 January 2002
58. Estonia 10 February 2003 12 July 2000 12 April 2010
59. Ethiopia 23 July 2007 11 October 1994 26 November 2007
60. European Union 21 May 2004 31 December 1990 12 November 2008
61. Fiji 25 March 1993 14 May 2008
62. Finland 10 February 2004 15 February 1994 20 June 2006
63. France 29 October 2002 31 December 1990 11 July 2005

32
64. Gabon 15 December 2004 10 July 2006 1 October 2007
65. Gambia 5 May 2003 23 April 1996
66. Georgia 5 September 2006 8 January 1998 4 November 2008
67. Germany 14 June 2006 30 November 1993
68. Ghana 21 August 2012 10 April 1990 27 June 2007
69. Greece 11 January 2011 28 January 1992 17 September 2008
70. Grenada 21 May 2004 10 December 1990
71. Guatemala 25 September 2003 28 February 1991 3 November 2006
72. Guinea 9 November 2004 27 December 1990 29 May 2013
73. Guinea-Bissau 10 September 2007 27 October 1995 10 September 2007
74. Guyana 14 September 2004 19 March 1993 16 April 2008
75. Haiti 19 April 2011 18 September 1995 14 September 2009
76. Holy See 25 January 2012 25 January 2012
77. Honduras 2 December 2003 11 December 1991 23 May 2005
78. Hungary 22 December 2006 15 November 1996 19 April 2005
79. Iceland 13 May 2010 2 September 1997 1 March 2011
80. India 5 May 2011 27 March 1990 9 May 2011
81. Indonesia 20 April 2009 23 February 1999 19 September 2006
82. Iran 7 December 1992 20 April 2009
83. Iraq 17 March 2008 22 July 1998 17 March 2008
84. Ireland 17 June 2010 3 September 1996 9 November 2011
85. Israel 27 December 2006 20 May 2002 4 February 2009
86. Italy 2 August 2006 31 December 1990 5 October 2009
87. Jamaica 29 September 2003 29 December 1995 5 March 2008
88. Japan 12 June 1992
89. Jordan 22 May 2009 16 April 1990 24 February 2005
90. Kazakhstan 31 July 2008 29 April 1997 18 June 2008
91. Kenya 16 June 2004 19 October 1992 9 December 2003
92. Korea, Republic of 28 December 1998 27 March 2008
93. Kiribati 15 September 2005 27 September 2013
94. Kuwait 12 May 2006 3 November 2000 16 February 2007
95. Kyrgyz Republic 2 October 2003 7 October 1994 16 September 2005
96. Lao Peoples Democratic
Republic
26 September 2003 1 October 2004 25 September 2009
97. Latvia 7 December 2001 24 February 1994 4 January 2006
98. Lebanon 5 October 2005 11 March 1996 22 April 2009
99. Lesotho 24 September 2003 28 March 1995 16 September 2005

33
100.Liberia 22 September 2004 16 September 2005 16 September 2005
101.Libya 18 June 2004 22 July 1996 7 June 2005
102.Liechtenstein 20 February 2008 9 March 2007 8 July 2010
103.Lithuania 9 May 2002 8 June 1998 21 December 2006
104.Luxembourg 12 May 2008 29 April 1992 6 November 2007
105.Macedonia, Former
Yugoslav Rep.
12 January 2005 13 October 1993 13 April 2007
106.Madagascar 15 September 2005 12 March 1991 22 September 2004
107.Malawi 17 March 2005 12 October 1995 4 December 2007
108.Malaysia 24 September 2004 11 May 1993 24 September 2008
109.Maldives 4 February 2013 7 September 2000 22 March 2007
110.Mali 12 April 2002 31 October 1995 18 April 2008
111.Malta 24 September 2003 28 February 1996 11 April 2008
112. Marshall Islands 15 June 2011 5 November 2010 17 November 2011
113.Mauritania 22 July 2005 1 July 1993 25 October 2006
114.Mauritius 21 April 2003 6 March 2001 15 December 2004
115. Mexico 4 March 2003 11 April 1990 20 July 2004
116.Micronesia, Federal States
of
24 May 2004 6 July 2004 21 March 2012
117. Moldova 16 September 2005 15 February 1995 1 October 2007
118. Monaco 5 June 2001 23 April 1991
119.Mongolia 27 June 2008 25 June 2003 11 January 2006
120.Montenegro 23 October 2006 23 October 2006 23 October 2006
121. Morocco 19 September 2002 28 October 1992 9 May 2007
122. Mozambique 20 September 2006 8 June 1998 9 April 2008
123. Myanmar (Burma) 30 March 2004 11 June 1991 20 December 2012
124. Namibia 16 August 2002 6 March 2009 3 August 2004
125. Nauru 12 July 2012 12 July 2012 12 July 2012
126. Nepal 23 December 2011 24 July 1991 31 March 2011
127. Netherlands 26 May 2004 8 September 1993 31 October 2006
128. New Zealand 19 July 2002 16 December 1998
129. Nicaragua 9 September 2002 4 May 1990 15 February 2006
130. Niger 30 September 2004 10 November 1992 11 August 2008
131. Nigeria 28 June 2001 1 November 1989 14 December 2004
132. Niue 16 July 2012 16 July 2012
133. Norway 23 September 2003 14 November 1994 29 June 2006
134. Oman 13 May 2005 15 March 1991 9 January 2014

34
135. Pakistan 13 January 2010 25 October 1991 31 August 2007
136. Palau 24 March 2009
137. Panama 18 August 2004 13 January 1994 23 September 2005
138. Papa New Guinea 16 July 2007
139. Paraguay 22 September 2004 23 August 1990 1 June 2005
140. Peru 23 January 2002 16 January 1992 16 November 2004
141. Philippines 28 May 2002 7 June 1996 8 November 2006
142. Poland 12 November 2001 26 May 1994 15 September 2006
143. Portugal 10 May 2004 3 December 1991 28 September 2007
144. Qatar 10 March 2008 4 May 1990 30 January 2007
145. Romania 4 December 2002 21 January 1993 2 November 2004
146. Russia 26 May 2004 17 December 1990 9 May 2006
147. Rwanda 26 September 2003 13 May 2002 4 October 2006
148. St. Kitts and Nevis 21 May 2004 19 April 1995
149. St. Lucia 16 July 2013 21 August 1995 25 November 2011
150. St. Vincent and the
Grenadines
29 October 2010 17 May 1994
151.Samoa 19 August 2005
152. San Marino 20 July 2010 10 October 2000
153. Sao Tome and Principe 12 April 2006 20 June 1996 12 April 2006
154. Saudi Arabia 18 January 2005 9 January 1992 29 April 2013
155. Senegal 27 September 2003 27 November 1989 16 November 2005
156. Serbia 6 September 2001 12 March 2001 20 December 2005
157. Seychelles 22 April 2003 27 February 1992 16 March 2006
158. Sierra Leone 6 June 1994 30 September 2004
159. Singapore 28 August 2007 23 October 1997 6 November 2009
160. Slovakia 3 December 2003 28 May 1993 1 June 2006
161. Slovenia 21 May 2004 6 July 1992 1 April 2008
162. Solomon Islands 6 January 2012
163. South Africa 20 February 2004 14 December 1998 22 November 2004
164. Spain 1 March 2002 13 August 1990 19 June 2006
165. Sri Lanka 22 September 2006 6 June 1991 31 March 2004
166. Sudan 10 December 2004 19 November 1993 5 September 2014
167. Suriname 25 May 2007 28 October 1992
168. Swaziland 24 September 2012 3 October 1995 24 September 2012
169. Sweden 30 April 2004 22 July 1991 25 September 2007
170.Switzerland 27 October 2006 14 September 2005 24 September 2009

239560-2

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to 239560-2

Similar to 239560-2 (20)

239560-2